The high court gets it right. Will we?

Our opinion: Now that the 2010 health care reform act has been deemed constitutional, the challenge should be continue working on the goal of universal, affordable health care, not to keep wasting time on a partisan fight.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday put to rest the question of whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act is constitutional. It is.

So now its opponents have a choice. They can keep fighting as partisans — a petty and destructive political battle that, if successful, would leave tens of millions of Americans without health care and the rest of us without the law’s consumer protections and cost-containment provisions. Or they can work as lawmakers and citizens toward a shared goal of making health care universal and affordable.

Right now, Republicans from Mitt Romney on down appear to prefer the fight to the hard work.

What a waste, as if the last three years of turmoil on this issue haven’t been wasted enough of the nation’s time and energy. An America where everyone has access to quality, affordable health care is stronger and healthier than a nation in which one-sixth of its population lacks access to care or the means to pay for it.

An America that is finding ways to get control of health care costs that are slowly consuming more and more of household incomes, business revenue, public budgets and the gross national product is more secure and sustainable.

As much as Republicans and independents profess to oppose what’s come to be known as Obamacare, polls have shown that majorities of both groups like key aspects of the law. They like that people can’t be denied affordable coverage based on pre-existing conditions, or dropped for actually using their benefits. They favor letting children who are just starting out in careers stay on their parents’ insurance policies till age 26. They like small businesses being able to get into a pool of lower-cost coverage.

What they don’t like — other than the fact that a majority of Americans didn’t elect their candidate in 2008 — is that the act requires that we pay for these things. Which is, of course, what responsibility is all about. Demanding all the benefits without paying for them is the very kind of irresponsibility that Republicans rightfully rail against in other contexts.

But the fact is that people can’t just shrug off getting health coverage and then expect society to pay for them if they need care. The law’s individual mandate requires them to either buy health insurance or pay a penalty that will fund their care if they get sick. Approving that was arguably one of the most courageous steps Congress has taken in years. It was also, remember, a favored policy approach of Republicans in Congress until about the time that Barack Obama embraced the idea.

To its credit, the Supreme Court majority, even in the face of loud opposition, remained faithful to a vital precedent: that the court’s role is to find, where it can, ways to preserve duly enacted legislation, not excuses to dismantle it.

Amid all the opposition, we have yet to see a credible alternative from the act’s opponents. Mr. Romney’s answer is largely to throw the issue back to states to figure out. He would thus have the federal government take an even more hands-off approach to a problem that has been slowly strangling the economy. He says that, if elected, he would use executive power to effectively waive the act until Congress repeals it. What kind of leadership walks away from a crisis?

All the more reason that Americans need to pay attention this election season to the candidates not just for president but for the House and Senate. Elections do have consequences, and the next one may well decide whether America continues on the road toward affordable health care for all her people or loses her way.

If Obamacare was constitutional, because the penalty, er, tax, for not buying health insurance, is a tax, and not a penalty; why did President Obama and the Democrats tell us that the tax, er, penalty, was a penalty, and not a tax?

Unless future presidents are free not to enforce laws that they find to be unconstitunal, as President Obama has done with DOMA, the only way to free ourselves of Obamacare seems to be repeal. This November, let’s vote for those who will repeal and replace this abomination.

Answer me this: when was the last time the world’s biggest government got involved in a private industry and LOWERED costs?

Also, SCOTUS got it wrong because Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution (remember that thing?) clearly states: ALL bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” ACA originated in the Senate, therefore the ruling that it’s acceptable as a “tax” is just plain incorrect.

@4.If Obamacare was constitutional, because the penalty, er, tax, for not buying health insurance, is a tax, and not a penalty; why did President Obama and the Democrats tell us that the tax, er, penalty, was a penalty, and not a tax

Because pansy ass Republicans wouldn’t vote for the law if the word “tax” was used.

30 million people will still have no insurance. Illegals, and people who cannot find insurance that is less than 8% of household income are exempt. So for a policy that cost $5,000 (good luck finding it) you would have to make more than $63,500 to have to pay the added tax.

Plus, small business with more than 50 FULL Time employees will be face with the decision of paying out $500,000 for insurance our cutting full time staff.

For now, just sit back and watch as the AHA crumbles and destroys the country.

Let’s face it, the law is not perfect but it’s a hell of a lot better than what Republicans have ever done. What have they ever done about reforming health care? close your eyes, what do you see? got it. The Republican party has been taking a no win position in opposing Obama. The party of no hasn’t got a leg to stand on. They are not trying to govern, work out solutions to problems they are totally intent on defeating Obama. The major reason for that which no one, especially a politician , would admit, there’s a black man in the white house I hope he gets 4 more years and renames it the black house. Chew on that party of no…

The popularity of Medicare stems from the fact that the ability to spend other people’s money is always popular with those who are on the receiving end of the government’s generosity. If one considers the abysmal graduation rate of Albany 3′s point stands. When you consider that only 30% of those who graduate from high school in this state are ready for college, it is clear that the general public has substituted faith government to handle the very complex for evidence that it cannot handle the relatively simple.

Skip — thanks, but no thanks. I will not vote for the GOP because there is every indication, based on their history, that they indeed want to repeal and replace –with nothing. That is unacceptable. And, not only that, they want to do away with Medicare. Would you prefer having to be responsible for your parents’ medical bills when they lose Medicare AND their life savings?

#13′s point about preserving ones inheritance by off load parents cost says reams about the Ethics of liberals. It also says s reams about their naivety. To think that this sort of exploitation of others will not turn on you and result in your soul rotting and your pockets empted by others of your kind is faith substituting for reflection.

Lil, isn’t Medicare supposed to be broke in a couple of years? Social Security? Medicaid? I’m sorry to repeart myself, but, you must have missed my questions the first time I asked them of you. I’ll be happy to answer your question of me, after I read your answers to my questions of you. I look forward to answering your question!

#5: You don’t seem to get that not everything can be run fro profit. If that were the case, then only the rich would be entitled to health care, only the healthy would be insured, poor children would be left to die, and the life span of Americans would decrease rapidly. There comes a point when a civilized society must choose to meet the needs of the majority of its people over the profits and privileges of the few.

#9: Some tweaks would solve this, that’s why you need SMART people in government. Would you prefer being responsible, out-of-pocket, for your aging parents’ health care? Or would you let them die, because it’s “their fault” that they got old?

#12: When it come to “spending other peoples’ money,” did you object when Paterson handed out $5 billion of taxpayer money to private business? At least Medicare has kept millions of seniors health and out of poverty. Could you tell me what we in NY got for that $5 billion? Another Global Foundries asking for even more money, or another Gardenway skipping town?

I offer the following observations with respect to# 16: I was right about Liberals willingness to exploit others. The unwillingness to even assume out of pocket costs for their parents’ health care is appalling.

However, she is correct about the state subsidizing activities she does not approve of. We only differ in that I object to forced gifts of other people’s money to causes that I find both desirable and undesirable .

The mistake that #16 has made is to believe that by granting a general principle it will not be generally implemented.

If you do not like the cosequences that flow from your ethics you should change them!

Charlie, because President Obama set the precedent for refusing to enforce a law that he didn’t believe constitutional, the next President can choose to do the same thing. If President Obama can refuse to enforce DOMA, future Presidents can refuse to enforce Obamacare.

#13 and #19: So, you don’t have home insurance? And when/if something happens to your home, you do not collect on the “principle” that others have to pay for your losses? And, somehow, in spite of what #19 has stated, I really don’t believe that you object to private business, oil companies, war profiteers getting huge taxpayer handouts. Righties are always mum about that stuff, notice? It’s always the “little guy” getting any help that really bothers them. And I’ll be very glad when you pay for your parents’ $250K operations (I just don’t think that that’s gonna happen any time soon).

#15: See my point in #16. Social Security is not that bad off. Medicare just needs some smart changes. Bloomberg is on the right track. Let those who take care of themselves receive discounts, and those that poison themselves, smoke, grow fat, etc. shoulder more of the burden. So guys, get off the couch, turn off the “game,” put away the cheese nachos and the endless twelve-packs. Sure, it’s your “right” to do those things but, to use your own logic, I don’t think I should have to pay as much for my premiums if I’m getting up at five to work out every morning. Ever notice how righties have a great big sense of entitlement, while accusing everybody else of it?

Victor: Now you’re not making any sense! By your “logic,” don’t you think it’s a hypocritical to carry home insurance/health insurance and collecting on them, since you are essentially “exploiting” other people? And in spite of what you have said, you’ll pardon me if I simply don’t believe that you object to private business, oil companies, banks and war profiteers getting huge handouts of taxpayer money. It’s only when the “little guy” gets something that righties object, huh? And you didn’t answer my question as to whether YOU are willing to pay out of pocket for your parents’ health care needs. I don’t know what land you live in, but not everyone stands to inherit a “legacy.” Let me guess, your answer is that everybody should put aside every penny they make during their working years so they can afford to pay for their own operations when they get old. Let’s see, that rules out being able to afford kids and consumer spending by most. OK by me! (especially if it’s YOUR product that people all of a sudden can’t afford because they have to save for future health care needs).

Skip: Please see #16: In spite of the FOX talking points you’ve obviously been listening to, Social Security is not badly off. Medicare can be saved by some smart changes. Bloomberg is on the right track. Or better still, give the people who takes care of themselves premium discounts compared to those that poison themselves, smoke, get fat, etc. So guys, get off the couch, turn off “the game,” put away the cheese nachos, smokes and endless twelve-packs, and go climb a mountain. Sure, it’s your “freedom” to do those things, but not on my dime if I’m getting up at five every morning to work out. You preach personal responsibility, now apply it to yourselves. Ot do I need to apply the term “hypocrite” yet again??

Lilith, I am flattered at the attention you have shown – sending two postings you have managed an excellent imitation of my behavior. But on to business: Social security taxes go into a trust fund that buys government bonds and thus helps hide the true cost of the deficit. (Trusting the dishonest is not a mark of sound judgment.) Your belief about the state of social security reflects both the belief that congress will not change the level of benefits and your conjecture about the market for the bonds that are redeemed to finance existing and future service levels.

The merits of an idea do not depend upon do not depend on the merits of its proponents. Thus hypocrite is nothing more than a gratuitous insult which as expressed in the second paragraph is also sexist.

Lilith is on the right track when extoling the merits of experienced based ratings. Unfortunately with Obama care that principal that is used successes fully in household insurance has been abandoned in favor of off loading the cost of self destructive behaviors on to the general public.

Well, if you plan to die before 2035, or if you are planning to receive only 75% of the benefits that you are paying taxes for, maybe you are right, Lil. But, since a lot of folks are planning to live past 2035, and they are also planning on receiving 100% of the benefits that they are paying for, you are wrong, Lil.

I hope you don’t mind me using Social Security’s own web site to support my claim.

Skip is correct in asserting that social security at its current level of benefits is unsustainable. Since the level of benefits is a congressional decision, in today’s polarized world we can expect dramatic changes in the system before the 2035 date. Have a pleasant afternoon as the country moves into the night.

Now Skip, common sense should tell you that if the baby boomers have paid into SS all this time, then there should be a huge pot of money there, as was projected in the 80′s. Unfortunately, as Victor has mentioned, the fund was never dedicated and has in effect been raided to pay for, and hide the cost of, wars to protect private oil interests, etc. Remember Al Gore’s “lock box?” Solution: remove the contributions cap. Is there any reason why the well-off should pay a smaller percentage into the fund? And DEDICATE the fund.

Victor: Yes, Obamacare/Romneycare can be improved, but we need to start somewhere, not continue with the laissez-faire approach that will soon leave us in as civilized a state as Malawi. The GOP doesn’t have a plan at all, other than death vouchers (so named because, if the govt. gives you 3k towards buying an insurance plan, insurers will merely raise the premium 5k). Big solution there. As for the charges of “sexism,” I’m very happy that you picked up on that. I always find it funny when men charge that it’s those irresponsible women and their birth control that’s breaking the bank (mind you, that charge in NOT sexist- sarcasm alert), when they themselves are (to be honest) are some of the biggest examples of irresponsible behavior, healthwise (just look at Rush Limbaugh).

Solution — health care coaches in the work place and out. In the work place, employer gets tax incentive for hiring, employees check on a routine basis with the coach, who provides info, sets health improvement goals, and encourages employee to make healthy changes. Improvements (such as weight loss and lower bp) verified by doctor, thus entitling employee to lower premiums. Win for employer, win for employee, win for the long=term state and solvency of health care in this country. Loser — big pharma, so expect them to lobby against it. There’s a big difference between the govt. telling people to be healthy and the boss telling them that. I suspect that when the latter talks, most are going to listen.

Now Lil, common sense tells me that if someone won’t acknowledge the reality of social Security’s self described financial situation, then I should not waste further time discussing the issue with those who won’t acknowledge reality.

Now, Skip, you haven’t responded to my proposed solutions. I think you’re just trying to cut and run. 75% is better than 0% (the latter is the extremist right solution). And the 75% can be improved, with some tweaks, as I have mentioned.

#27’s assertion that Obama care can be improved is an assertion devoid of details. We know the government has devoted medical resources that could have been used in cancer research to funded AIDs research to cure a medical problem that is linked to definable behaviors. This is an example of politics driving health care resource allocations. Does anyone seriously believe that with a bigger role for government we will not see more politically driven resource allocations?

In today’s world doctors can be sued for poor performance. Do you think the government will allowed itself to be sued? Apparently with improved healthcare patents no longer will be able to sue for poor quality of services. If you find this a leap explain why lawyers have not put together a class action suit against the board of Ed on behalf Albany High graduates and drop outs?

This being said the attempt to present a solid argument is worth of respect. However #28’s comment shows that the last sentence in paragraph 1 was not assimilated and thus is of little consequence